Connecting Readers and Writers discussion
Reader's Station
>
Why is The Hunger Games so successful?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Everly
(new)
Mar 23, 2012 07:54AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Because it's a reasonable dystopian and teen pulp novel that is quite easy to read ... unless you've seen Battle Royale, then you will find it completely derivative and not worth your time (boom).
see, at my age, you're tired of the dystopian thing. they wrote it too much back in the 60's and 70's, and before, and it's enough already for me. but for a younger generation, this is their version of "soylent green" and "the giver" and "logan's run" and on and on and on. my kids like it. i don't like the idea of kids killing kids in a book. i realize that the author claims that she's exposing something that needs to be criticized, but that's crap. she's writing something for shock value and entertainment - which is fine, congrats for that. but don't tell me you're exposing something that doesn't exist. she was on cnn this morning talking about it, and the "expose" thing is how she answered the question about explaining how parents should react to kids killing kids. i didn't buy her answer and i won't buy the books.
I personally think the book industry is quite sick at the moment. Too many authors are just focussing on what is 'hot', rather than writing what they like. It's a sad state of affairs when that is all there is. I can say that Hunger Games is at least a little different in comparison to the current market, so that's a positive.
but why are the focusing on what's hot?
maybe because that's what publishers want.
maybe because that's what publishers want.
Richard wrote: "but why are the focusing on what's hot? maybe because that's what publishers want."
Ah but the agents are tiring of it. Many now have "We do not accept unsolicited queries in Urban Fantasy" on their websites. Seems that the Twilight Train has run it's course.
but i still don't know what "urban fantasy" is. help?
I think it translates to dystopian romance - correct me if I am wrong.
urban fantasy is dystopian romance? i don't know enough to disagree, but i can't possibly put those terms together.
I've always understood Urban Fantasy to be modern stories with fantastical creatures. More or less "Twilight", but with all the related stories. I know my wife read a series that took place in a vampire academy, there's more than a few Slayer inspired novels out there too. I could be wrong but I ~think~ that's what it refers to.
Isn't the book a play on reality media? Granted, dystopian, but still something the media savvy young adult can relate to. From what I understand, the narrative of the story is a screenwriter's dream, because the scenes can be imagined rather than having already been set. It seems reminiscent, somewhat, of The Running Man.
Collins led the way in new YA dystopian. She did it first and really well. She made an unlikable character likable, and that's hard to do.
It appeals to a lot of pretty basic emotions, features young people being persecuted by old, a pure love story, lots of color and a world bleaker than our own.Of course, social progress suggests a cycle of evolutionary behavior (tied to the neurobiology of belief and group commitment) that precludes the type of society -- particularly one that allows its own offspring to hunt one another -- from ever happening, which is why it's been tough for me to take a pass at it.
I wrote a blog about it a week or so ago:
http://lhthomson.blogspot.ca/2012/03/...
Julie wrote: "Collins led the way in new YA dystopian. She did it first and really well. She made an unlikable character likable, and that's hard to do."
what did she do first? Ya dystopian? i think it's been done, but that doesn't mean there's only supposed to be one book of anything. "the giver" is YA dystopian. "lord of the flies" is a variation. yeah, dozens of years ago, but like i said, i don't think anything is really new. just a variation on something else.
what did she do first? Ya dystopian? i think it's been done, but that doesn't mean there's only supposed to be one book of anything. "the giver" is YA dystopian. "lord of the flies" is a variation. yeah, dozens of years ago, but like i said, i don't think anything is really new. just a variation on something else.
I have to agree, LH. There's something off in people agreeing to that system, even taking into account the horrible rebellion and repression. I'm working on a few blog posts related to this myself, having seen the movie but not read the book.That said, if you can get past the "kids" doing non kid things it's not a bad movie as an action drama.
Richard wrote: "Julie wrote: "Collins led the way in new YA dystopian. She did it first and really well. She made an unlikable character likable, and that's hard to do."what did she do first? Ya dystopian? i t..."
Yeah, my bad. I wasn't clear. I guess I meant very recently and the story still read unique (to me). Giver 1993 and Lord of the flies, 1954, boys hunt each other but not a dystopian. Seems like the plots that are spinning off what she's done now come much closer to her premise than what came before. Does that make sense? I dunno, I might be making the water muddier. LOL
Stephen wrote: "I think it translates to dystopian romance - correct me if I am wrong."Urban fantasy is more or less a paranormal plot set in real-world settings not LOTR fantasy set in imaginary places. ie vampires in present day New York or London, instead of elves in the land of Sproggle.
*grins*
With The Hunger Games, it was just a great trilogy for me. It's sometimes just as simple as a great plot, great characters, excellent storytelling, broad appeal to YA and adults alike and good timing.
